Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!

[Citizen66]

And Citizen66 - you remember that time in that pub in the East End, when you had just joined this "community", and you got pissed and ran in there with a crash helmet on, screaming "this is a robbery, nobody move!".

It was actually 4 years after I joined this 'community', and it was in north London (Stoke Newington), not the east end. Also, I said something about Anarchists, robbery was never mentioned.

But... for your information mister popular illegal party thrower,

A) I don't give a fuck who laughed or who didn't, they're not my fucking mates, never were, never will be. The shite that leaves your mouth clearly proves that your informers have selective memories over that particular event.

B) You weren't actually there. It's revisionist cack. You're laughing at yourself mate Get PMing again and find out the facts first, eh?

 

[editor]

B) You weren't actually there. It's revisionist cack. You're laughing at yourself mate Get PMing again and find out the facts first, eh?

But you got your facts completely wrong about the 9/11 phone calls, didn't you?

 

[pk]

I didn't have to be there.

You really made a prick of yourself - as you are doing now.

It was actually 4 years after I joined this 'community', and it was in north London (Stoke Newington), not the east end. Also, I said something about Anarchists, robbery was never mentioned.

But... for your information mister popular illegal party thrower,

A) I don't give a fuck who laughed or who didn't, they're not my fucking mates, never were, never will be. The shite that leaves your mouth clearly proves that your informers have selective memories over that particular event.

B) You weren't actually there. It's revisionist cack. You're laughing at yourself mate Get PMing again and find out the facts first, eh?

 

[Citizen66]

I didn't have to be there.

You really made a prick of yourself - as you are doing now.

You're doing a character assasination of me about something that happened over 2 years ago and your facts are wrong?

What has this got to do with the 9/11 debate PK? You've got fuck all to say and are doing the chivalrous thing to the editor. I know who I'd rather be

 

[harry's afro hut]

/

I've almost forgotten what this thread was about. Is this relevant anymore..

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

 

[pk]

OK C66, whatever mate. I guess it's only a matter of time before you accuse me of being a "puppet" or whatever. So fucking predictable...

So... back to the thread - no comments about the Flight 93 link then?

 

[Jazzz]

My my - having just read the last couple of pages ...

I've just PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that calls were made from Flight 93 using the Verison system.

So you tin-foil-hatted shitheads can SHUT THE FUCK UP about Flight 93.

You want to complain at people making up bullshit about 9/11?

Go moan at your mate - Joe Vialls - you know the one, Dr Jazzz - the one that MADE YOU LOOK A COMPLETE CUNT MANY MANY TIMES BEFORE.

And Citizen66 - you remember that time in that pub in the East End, when you had just joined this "community", and you got pissed and ran in there with a crash helmet on, screaming "this is a robbery, nobody move!".

And nobody laughed.

And everybody thought "what's wrong with that fucking twat?"

Well, you're acting the same way now.

Go have a spliff or something.

I have reported this post as it is a highly objectionable string of personal abuse.

 

[Citizen66]

OK C66, whatever mate. I guess it's only a matter of time before you accuse me of being a "puppet" or whatever. So fucking predictable...

So... back to the thread - no comments about the Flight 93 link then?

I haven't called you anything, puppet or otherwise (stop the presumption). I haven't had time to either look at or respond to the link as you decided to distract me from it with your factless vitriolic bile that you felt was more important than the subject at hand. I'm going to go to the shop now because I need to buy some cigarettes. I'll get back to you tomorrow about the topic at hand.

 

[Jazzz]

It's amazing. As people remember that cellphone calls are not possible from airplanes in flight, the story changes! Suddenly they were all calling from airphones, and not cellphones.

As in 1984, the chocolate ration goes down, but everyone immediately forgets, and they rush out to celebrate the announcement that the ration has in fact gone up!

Why not ask instead... why are they making it up as they go along?

MIRACLES AND WONDERS Last week, USA Today reported a joint effort between Qualcomm and American Airlines' to allow passengers to make cellphone calls from aircraft in flight. According to the story, the satellite-based system employs a "Pico cell" to act as a small cellular tower.

"It worked great," gushed Monte Ford, American Airline's chief information officer. "I called the office. I called my wife. I called a friend in Paris. They all heard me great, and I could hear them loud and clear."

Before this new "Pico cell," it was nigh on impossible to make a call from a passenger aircraft in flight. Connection is impossible at altitudes over 8000 feet or speeds in excess of 230 mph.

Yet despite this, passengers Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick and Edward Felt all managed to place calls from Flight 93 on the morning of September 11. Peter Hanson, en route to Disneyland with his wife and daughter, phoned his dad from Flight 175. Madeline Amy Sweeney, a flight attendant, made a very dramatic call from Flight 11 as it sped to the North Tower. Barbara Olson made two calls, collect, to her husband at his government office from Flight 77 as it made its way to the Pentagon.

Each call was initially reported as coming from a cellphone. Later, when skepticism reared its ugly head and the Grassy Knollers arrived, the narrative became fuzzy; it was suggested that $10-a-minute Airfones were involved. Olson was an easy candidate for Airfone (one doesn't call collect from a cell), but as the stories developed, Olson—and Felt—were said to have called from inside locked lavatories. No Airfone there.

http://www.nypress.com/17/30/news&columns/AlanCabal.cfm

The USA Today article on the amazing new technology to allow people to make calls from mobiles in flight!

 

[pk]

I have reported this post as it is a highly objectionable string of personal abuse.

Have you read the link though Dr Jizzz?

Any comments?

Seems all your theories surrounding Flight 93, and that of your puppets, is utter bollocks.

Am I right, or am I right?

 

[pk]

As people remember that cellphone calls are not possible from airplanes in flight

That comment is bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks.

Dr Jazzz - it's been proven that cellphone calls are possible from planes in flight.

Want me to prove it again for you??

Are you Joe "tin-foil-hatted-shitcunt" Vialls in disguise?

 

[flimsier]

Stop making it up as you go along flim, it makes you look like an ignorant chancer.

PK would have a case he can prove that a similar satellite phone system to the one installed by American Airlines was also fitted to United Airlines Boeing 757's like flight 93 before 9/11/01 for example, but so far he hasn't proved anything to anyones satisfaction other than his own.



Why are you asking me?

Incidentally, I see that you claim earlier in the forum that you're "open to the 'Rumsfield knew' bit", so why did you vote for option 4?

No, I was saying that the claim was that it is impossible. Now we realise it was at least possible. No proof. The only definitive claim did not come from me.

On your last point, I do think we should now be rid of these threads unless something new and significant comes up. Sadly, the poll did not allow me to vote for more than one option. Are you accusing me of being dishonest?

 

[pk]

Oh dear, yet more egg in the face of eggstra-terrestrial lizard conspiring David Icke supporters...

Final Contact - using cell phones on September 11, 2001
Wireless Review, *Nov 1, 2001 *by Betsy Harter

Calling From 30,000 Feet

Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

"On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions -- say north, southwest, and southeast," she explained. "Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage."

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

"They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked," she said.

It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GTV/is_21_18/ai_79963471

So can we shut the fuck up about the "supposed" phone calls now?

It's been proved now that calls were possible.

THE CALLS WERE POSSIBLE!

 

[Jazzz]

Have you read the link though Dr Jizzz?

Any comments?

Seems all your theories surrounding Flight 93, and that of your puppets, is utter bollocks.

Am I right, or am I right?

Offensive corruption of username has been firmly established as a bannable offence as you know pk. nala1917 was of course rightly banned for 'ediot' and this is certainly not the first time you have pulled this one. I have reported this post also.

 

[Citizen66]

Corruption of username has been firmly established as a bannable offence as you know pk. nala1917 was of course rightly banned for 'ediot' and this is certainly not the first time you have pulled this one. I have reported this post also.

Selective editing. But you knew that anyway Dr J.

 

[pk]

So you're going to run from the Flight 93 calls issue then?

Hey - why not pick a silly typo and highlight that instead, claiming to be personally emotionally injured?

Saves you having to admit that once again your spectacular and worrying claims have turned out to be a load of fucking bollocks made up by some clueless cunt on a website.

So... now we've established that calls CAN be made on both in-flight phones and cell phones... what was the next point of yours you'd like me to prove is bollocks Dr Jazzz?

Edited to change another typo - Dr Jazzz instead of Dr Jizzz... it's just that whenever I read his posts I can't help thinking "what a load of wank"...

 

[editor]

Have you read the link though Dr Jizzz?

Please don't piss about with people's user names, pk.

 

[pk]

I won't Editor.

After all, it seems to provide a conveinient excuse for Dr Jazzz to throw a hissy fit and evade the proof that his "theories" are bullshit when it's shown to him, doesn't it?

So I apologise, Dr Jazzz.

Now - about those phone calls that were PERFECTLY possible, as I have continuously said since you first claimed they were not... any chance of an apology for that?

 

[flimsier]

Offensive corruption of username has been firmly established as a bannable offence as you know pk. nala1917 was of course rightly banned for 'ediot' and this is certainly not the first time you have pulled this one. I have reported this post also.

How many posts have you reported?

You can take the piss out of my username as much as you like!

 

[pk]

It's cool Flimsier, he's the sensitive type.

Reporting posts?
It what he does when he's desperate to RUN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH AS FAST AS HE CAN!!!

 

[pk]

 

[pk]

I will stop busting your balls in a minute Dr Jazzz.

I'd like you to do something though.

1) Admit that you were wrong about Ian Huntley.

2) Admit Joe Vialls is a fraudulent liar.

3) Admit that phone calls from a plane in flight is perfectly possible.

 

[Citizen66]

Editor pays lip service to the problematic PK and he feels suitably reprimanded

 

[pk]

Hey, Citizen66 - why don't you report my posts too, eh?

Saves you having to look at THE FACTS doesn't it?

Where's Dr Jazzz?

It's all gone quiet?

I wonder why?

 

[editor]

Editor pays lip service to the problematic PK and he feels suitably reprimanded

Last warning. I'm fed up listening to your shit.

You've caused just as much disruption - if not more - with your endless moronic comments and personal insults.

Unlike pk, you haven't had the good manners to apologise.

Final warning, citizen. Your call.

 

[Citizen66]

Sorry.

 

[fela fan]

pk, you have such a lovely sweet mouth. It's really quite endearing.

Do you speak so eloquently when face to face with people?

 

[flimsier]

I will stop busting your balls in a minute Dr Jazzz.

I'd like you to do something though.

1) Admit that you were wrong about Ian Huntley.

2) Admit Joe Vialls is a fraudulent liar.

3) Admit that phone calls from a plane in flight is perfectly possible.

Three very good questions. Please admit or refute.

 

[pk]

Where is your friend now Fela Fan?

Are you employing delaying tactics on his behalf, like a... like a conspiracy!

 

[editor]

DrJ: you have now reported several of pk's posts despite his apology to both you and me.

As far as I can see he has not called you 'DrJ+zzz' at any time since and I fail to see why you should continue to wear out the 'report this post' button.

Your last complaint was sent 10 minutes ago and pointed to this thread. It is an hour since he apologised to you, to which you have not responded.

Why should I ban him after he has apologised to the both of us?

It couldn't be because you're trying to avoid answring his questions, is it?

Oh and pk: any further insulting name changes to the good doctor's name will result in a temp ban.